Was it the right decision to give Dan Cullen a Cricket Australia contract?

Australia needs Dan Cullen to be a successful player, but was it the right decision to give him a contract after only one season. Giving him a contract is going to do one of two things; continue his development or hinder it because of the expectation.

I can't imagine what it would be like to have so much pressure put on you after only one season of first class cricket. Perhaps the better decision would have been to say we are keeping an eye on you and we think you have a lot of potential. But now with a contract there is a lot of pressure for him to perform and earn his contract. What is going to happen to the bloke if he loses it after just one year? Perhaps a bit too early to call.

The color of immortality, nature and envy - you are truly a unique person. While clearly the color of nature, you also symbolize rebirth, fertility and hope in the world. On the other side of the spectrum, a natural aptitude to money with green coming to signify money and possibly even *********!

I'm inclined to agree with Kyle. Now CA are forced to put their eggs all in one basket a bit, they've made a commitment to this guy over the long term by contracting him at such a young age. However, they've put their eggs into a pretty high quality basket...

With regards to that - it sets a dangerous precedent. Lets say this year Beau Casson takes 40 wickets and then does not get a Cricket Australia contract - what sort of message does this send to him? You'll forever be behind Cullen? You didn't deserve your 40 wickets? They weren't good enough to get a contract?

With regards to that - it sets a dangerous precedent. Lets say this year Beau Casson takes 40 wickets and then does not get a Cricket Australia contract - what sort of message does this send to him? You'll forever be behind Cullen? You didn't deserve your 40 wickets? They weren't good enough to get a contract?

think about it your saying if Casson were to 40 odd wickets this season and doesn't get contract CA will be sending the message that`` He'll forever be behind Cullen?, he didn't deserve his 40 wickets? They weren't good enough to get a contract?.

But if Cullen was to do well again this season that kind of dilemma wont come up...

think about it your saying if Casson were to 40 odd wickets this season and doesn't get contract CA will be sending the message that`` He'll forever be behind Cullen?, he didn't deserve his 40 wickets? They weren't good enough to get a contract?.

But if Cullen was to do well again this season that kind of dilemma wont come up...

As much as the selectors say that they just pick the best 25 players and give them a contract, Ive got no doubt that they look to fill certain spots. Fact is, with the demise of Hauritz, there was a vacancy for an off-spinner, and like most selections in sport, Cullen was in the right place at the right time. Apart from all that though, forty wickets for an off-spinner, on Australian pitches, is outstanding - debut season or not.

As much as the selectors say that they just pick the best 25 players and give them a contract, Ive got no doubt that they look to fill certain spots.

And thats exactly how they should do it. They arent going to have contracts to 25 wicket keepers just because they are the best 25 players in the country - they have to balance the "squad". Basically, they pick the 25 players that they think have the biggest chance of playing for Australia in the following year.

Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker

People go into politics to change the world. That's a bad idea. The only good reason to go into politics is to sweep government away so that the world can change itself.

Originally Posted by GIMH

Freddie is the greatest cricketer ever so the fact these comparisons are being made means three things: